Throws versus tech crouch: anyone else find it odd?

Wandrian

Wandrian

I don't know.
Tech crouch moves evade pretty much every high, except for throws. I don't think it's really good or bad, just weird(or maybe it doesn't bother? not sure). Anyone else?
 
Depends how low/fast the move makes you crouch.

Tech crouches tend to just straight up ignore attacks so it whiffs through you but not throws but I'm pretty sure you can tech crouch throws providing thier hand doesn't touch you.
 
Are there even any FC moves that you can't be grabbed out of with a generic A+G/B+G? I don't think there are >.>
 
Throws have lots of active frames (I believe this is the reason). Most TC moves don't. Lots of FC moves don't actually have TC frames either.

Moves that stay low for a long time go right under throws.
 
Waitwaitwait, FC moves that look like TC aren't? I'm wishing I could buy more memory so I could keep all this in my head -.-
 
Tech Crouch is a state based effect.

It works as follows.

A character has 3 "hurtboxes" for each hit range on the character. When a character does a move with the Tech Crouch property, it removes the high hitbox for X frames, meaning moves tagged with the high property cannot clash with a hurtbox, including throws. Throws have a large amount of "active frames" so they stick out there much longer. This means if the active frames are longer than the TC window, you are gonna get tagged with a throw.

Other moves crouch as an incidental; without having the TC property merely as a function of "hurtbox shifting". for example, Mitsu's entry into MST via 66 is not a tech crouch, its a hurtbox based shift. this means that some highs if they hit "low enough" will still be able to hit him. Ivy 214B is another example of pure hurtbox shifting.

Some moves even have both forms of evasion. Ivy 22K, Pyr 22K, for example, have both.

the point is: this game is complicated.

PS: As a side note, in Tekken all evasion is hurtbox shifting. lol.
 
Pyrrah Omega DNS evades all thows, except Nightmare and Siegfried FC A+G or FC B+G
I don't remember if any of Astaroth throws work on her DNS.
 
SuckingMaw said:
Other moves crouch as an incidental; without having the TC property merely as a function of "hurtbox shifting". for example, Mitsu's entry into MST via 66 is not a tech crouch, its a hurtbox based shift. this means that some highs if they hit "low enough" will still be able to hit him. Ivy 214B is another example of pure hurtbox shifting.
Click to expand...

I can picture tech stepping as hurtbox shifting easily, but since there "should" have been set levels of high/mid/low, wouldn't the only hurtbox shifting on the Y plane be valid against mids ?
 
WuHT said:
I can picture tech stepping as hurtbox shifting easily, but since there "should" have been set levels of high/mid/low, wouldn't the only hurtbox shifting on the Y plane be valid against mids ?
Click to expand...

All tech stepping is hurtbox shfting, there is no such state as "tech step".
 
It isn't any different, really.

Step isn't that complicated. your Hurtboxes aren't in the same place an active hitbox is. That's all it is.

The difference between a QS and a "step" is QS removes tracking properties of some moves, and it shifts your hitbox faster/further. Moves with "tech step" have hurtbox shifts which vary in speed and quality, from less good than a normal step, to better/faster than a quickstep.

Moves have re-track properties at a certain number of points in their animation, and if it's anything similar to Tekken, have a radius of degree's to which it re-tracks. That may not hold true for SC though because the 3d in SC isn't tethered characters, it's free-form.

To clarify further, horizontals *in general* don't "track" they have wider hitboxes, and larger active hitbox windows.
 
On the tracking, would the tracking be limited more by angles or the animation of the attack itself? I've heard and been told both. One tracking vertical in SCV that particularly sticks out in my mind is Dampierre Poker Bluff B, which on several occasions I've seen do just shy of a full 180 degree turn in midair, with how brief the time between input and impact is(the wiki lacks the frame data but I'd guess i15 or slightly faster) I'd assume the animation of the attack itself doesn't add much restriction if any; unless this varies with specific attacks as well.
 
Well, it works like this.

Say a move is i15. At some point during the moves 15 frames of animation, a single or a few "tracking frames" occur where the game tells the move to "reorient" towards the other character, and a certain number of degrees that it is allowed to do so. The later the "tracking frame" occurs, the better a move can be said to have tracking. Tracking checks against the opponents "state" to see if it's viable, and if it is, executes the tracking on the next frame.

Make sense?
 
So basically tracking is the same as realignment? I've had a lot of people who tried to convince me from the opposite.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that tracking verticals are moves that are also slightly horizontal. A move that comes to mind would be NM's 33B. Just looking at the animation, it looks like a diagonal motion (mostly vertical, slightly horizontal).

During a replay, I saw NM's 33B from a weird camera angle that allowed me to see the animation from a different angle. It looked like a diagonal motion.

Realignment is pretty self explanatory. The move (or character) literally realigns itself to the opponent. Something like DNS B comes to mind. The reason I say this is because if I QS at just the right time (right before impact), I can dodge it entirely. If I tried to QS too soon, right around the time when I see the semi-crouched DNS state, the B would follow right after my QS, and it would realign.

Is this right? I'm only asking because you guys know more about the technical stuff than I do. Please don't belittle me for being wrong :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back